Backfire bombers: Reach USA ?

[Mike]

There was some cold war era movie that starred Rock Hudson as the
President about 25 years ago.

I can't remember the name, but I think it might have been called World
War 3.

There was one scene in the movie where they talked about how as
tensions had risen, the Soviets had sent their Backfire bombers over
Seattle as a show of force.

But weren't Backfire Bombers later found to have never been anything
more than a medium-range bomber ?

Was the movie realistic in having Backfire bombers being sent to the
continental USA ?

[Thomas Schoene]

"Mike" > wrote in message
om
> Was the movie realistic in having Backfire bombers being sent to the
> continental USA ?

Probably not. Tu-95 Bears or Tu-160 Blackjacks would have been better for
such missions.

However, one wartime profile that concerned the United States in the 1980s
would have had Backfires flying a one-way mission from Siberian bases across
the US and recovering in Cuba (or whatever was left of it).

Check out http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm

The sketch of operational range is interesting, but it's not clear what it
represents.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/range.gif

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Ragnar]

"Mike" > wrote in message
om...
> Was the movie realistic in having Backfire bombers being sent to the
> continental USA ?


Sure. But getting them back to the USSR might have been a problem.

[David Bromage]

Mike wrote:
> There was some cold war era movie that starred Rock Hudson as the
> President about 25 years ago.
>
> I can't remember the name, but I think it might have been called World
> War 3.

1982 telemovie, also starring David Soul and Brian Keith. Fairly typical
brinksmanship drama which IIRC included a Soviet invasion of Alaska. Or
was it just a special forces attack? I definately remember scenes of
small arms fire around the pipeline.

> There was one scene in the movie where they talked about how as
> tensions had risen, the Soviets had sent their Backfire bombers over
> Seattle as a show of force.
>
> But weren't Backfire Bombers later found to have never been anything
> more than a medium-range bombe?

The actual range of the Backfire was (and still is) hotly debated, as is
whether they were capable of being refuelled in flight. Officially they
didn't have refuelling probes, but some sources say these could be
screwed in at short notice and the refuelled range was said to be
comparable to the Bison.

While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental range,
this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only needed to get
within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any fixed target in the
western USA within range of an unrefuelled Backfire.

If it was just a show of force, a Backfire with extra tanks in the bomb
bay could probably get from Anadyr or Mys-Schmidta to Seattle and back.

Cheers
David

[Thomas Schoene]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message

> Mike wrote:
> > There was some cold war era movie that starred Rock Hudson as the
> > President about 25 years ago.
> >
> > I can't remember the name, but I think it might have been called
> World > War 3.
>
> 1982 telemovie, also starring David Soul and Brian Keith. Fairly
> typical brinksmanship drama which IIRC included a Soviet invasion of
> Alaska. Or was it just a special forces attack? I definately remember
> scenes of small arms fire around the pipeline.
>
> > There was one scene in the movie where they talked about how as
> > tensions had risen, the Soviets had sent their Backfire bombers
> over > Seattle as a show of force.
> >
> > But weren't Backfire Bombers later found to have never been
> anything > more than a medium-range bombe?
>
> The actual range of the Backfire was (and still is) hotly debated, as
> is whether they were capable of being refuelled in flight. Officially
> they didn't have refuelling probes, but some sources say these could
> be screwed in at short notice and the refuelled range was said to be
> comparable to the Bison.

Just to clarify this bit, early Backfires had a very visible refuelling
probe. It was removed under SALT II, but there is some debate about whther
it could be reinstalled quickly or not.

I'm not sure this is a valid a concern; if you heven't flown a proble and
drogue refuelling, the last place you want to learn is in the middle of an
operational strategic bombing mission.


> While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental
> range, this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only
> needed to get within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any
> fixed target in the western USA within range of an unrefuelled
> Backfire.

Does the Backfire even carry AS-15/Kh-55? I believe that missile is limited
to the Tu-169 and Tu-95. Most sources credit the Tu-22M3 with AS-16/Kh-15P,
a SRAM-equivalent short-range nuclear missile, but not the longer-range
cruise missile.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Brian]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental range,
> this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only needed to get
> within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any fixed target in the
> western USA within range of an unrefuelled Backfire.

Unfortunately the US Navy might have something to say about that. SM-2's
would eat Backfires.

[Darrell]

Mike wrote:
> There was some cold war era movie that starred Rock Hudson as the
> President about 25 years ago.
>
> I can't remember the name, but I think it might have been called World
> War 3.
>
> There was one scene in the movie where they talked about how as
> tensions had risen, the Soviets had sent their Backfire bombers over
> Seattle as a show of force.
>
> But weren't Backfire Bombers later found to have never been anything
> more than a medium-range bomber ?
>
> Was the movie realistic in having Backfire bombers being sent to the
> continental USA ?

With air refueling it can go anywhere.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

[Thomas Schoene]

"Brian" > wrote in message

> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental
> > range, this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only
> > needed to get within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any
> > fixed target in the western USA within range of an unrefuelled
> > Backfire.
>
> Unfortunately the US Navy might have something to say about that.
> SM-2's would eat Backfires.

The US Navy would hardly be in a position to intecept bombers flying the
minimum distance path from Russia to the US, since it's mostly over
permanent ice pack.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:

> "Brian" > wrote in message
>
> > "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > While the Soviets claimed that they did not have intercontinental
> > > range, this was a moot point. If carrying the Kh-55SM they only
> > > needed to get within 1300nm of their targets. That puts almost any
> > > fixed target in the western USA within range of an unrefuelled
> > > Backfire.
> >
> > Unfortunately the US Navy might have something to say about that.
> > SM-2's would eat Backfires.
>
> The US Navy would hardly be in a position to intecept bombers flying the
> minimum distance path from Russia to the US, since it's mostly over
> permanent ice pack.

Are you forgetting the nuclear battleship icebreaker with AEGIS and 20"
AA guns?

[David Bromage]

Thomas Schoene wrote:
> Just to clarify this bit, early Backfires had a very visible refuelling
> probe. It was removed under SALT II, but there is some debate about
whther
> it could be reinstalled quickly or not.
>
> I'm not sure this is a valid a concern; if you heven't flown a proble and
> drogue refuelling, the last place you want to learn is in the middle
of an
> operational strategic bombing mission.

One of the defectors in the early 80s claimed that each of the Backfire
bases had probes and they trained with them at night. However this could
be like most of the Iraqi defectors, claiming more than they actually
knew and trying to inflate their own importance.

> Does the Backfire even carry AS-15/Kh-55? I believe that missile is
limited
> to the Tu-169 and Tu-95. Most sources credit the Tu-22M3 with
AS-16/Kh-15P,
> a SRAM-equivalent short-range nuclear missile, but not the longer-range
> cruise missile.

You're probably right. Soviet Military Power (DoD 1983) said that the
then new ALCM would be "carried by the Backfire, the Blackjack, and
possibly the Bear". But then DIA also estimated the Backfire had an
unrefuelled range of 2700nm. :)

Cheers
David

[David Bromage]

Darrell wrote:
> With air refueling it can go anywhere.

They got two of them over the Indian Ocean a month or so ago.

Cheers
David

[Michael Petukhov]

David Bromage > wrote in message >...
> Darrell wrote:
> > With air refueling it can go anywhere.
>
> They got two of them over the Indian Ocean a month or so ago.

The Tu22M3 (Backfire) bombers are great but the true demands to note
that there were Tu95s and Tu160s operating over Indian Ocean.

Michael
>
> Cheers
> David